chapter 12 A “New Field” for the Twenty-First Century? Rationale for the Hexapla Project, and a Report on Its Progress Alison Salvesen History of Origen’s Hexapla and the non-lxx Greek Versions The earliest work on the biblical text using the editorial tools of classical antiq- uity is Origen’s Hexapla, dating to the second quarter of the third century ce. There has been some dispute over its exact purpose: did Origen aim primarily at producing a scholarly, standardized Christian lxx text, at publishing a tool to enable Christians to debate with Jews using comparable texts of Scripture, or a compendium of texts for exegetical purposes?1 Another point of contention is its extent: did Origen create a six-columned synoptic edition for every book of the translated lxx corpus? Or was it, at least for some books, merely a revised lxx text with marginal notes recording significant alternative renderings culled from later Jewish Greek versions? Would a text like the latter one have been linked to the “Tetrapla” (four-fold version), also mentioned in the tradition?2 Related issues include what degree of authority the Hebrew text had for Ori- gen, and whether it was included in his synopsis.3 In any case, it is clear that 1 S.P. Brock, “Origen’s Aims as a Textual Critic of the Old Testament,” in Papers Presented to the Fifth International Conference on Patristic Studies Held in Oxford 1967 (ed. F.L. Cross; StPtr 10 = tu 107; Berlin: Akademie, 1970), 215–218 (repr. in S. Jellicoe and H.M. Orlinsky [eds.], Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations: Selected Essays, with a Prolegomenon [New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1974], 343–346). Most recently, see T.M. Law, “Origen’s Parallel Bible: Textual Criticism, Apologetics or Exegesis?”Journal of Theological Studies 59 (2008): 1–21. 2 See S. Sipilä, “Max Leopold Margolis and the Origenic Recension in Joshua”; L.J. Greenspoon, “A Preliminary Publication of Max Leopold Margolis’s Andreas Masius, together with his Discussion of Hexapla-Tetrapla,” and R.G. Jenkins, “Hexaplaric Marginalia and the Hexapla- Tetrapla Question,” all in Origen’s Hexapla and Fragments: Papers Presented at the Rich Semi- nar on the Hexapla, Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, 25th July–3rd August 1994 (ed. A. Salvesen; tsaj 58; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 16–38; 39–69; 73–87. 3 Pierre Nautin’s view that there was no Hebrew column in the Hexapla (Origène: Sa vie et son œuvre [Paris: Beauchesne, 1977], 315) was refuted on the codicological evidence by © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004335028_013 a “new field” for the twenty-first century? the hexapla project 287 Origen and his immediate successors Pamphilus and Eusebius of Caesarea were responsible for collecting and preserving alternative Greek versions to the lxx, almost all from Jewish sources. The results of such activity are also the main focus of modern scholars, rather than a reconstruction of the putative six (or more) columned synopsis that may never have existed in full for the entire translated corpus of lxx. This “Hexaplaric” activity became more and more attenuated with the loss of Origen’s motivation within the context of textual issues and interfaith polemic. Critical marks (asterisks and obeli) deriving from Origen’s edition of the lxx appear in a small proportion of textual witnesses. Short readings from various non-lxx versions made their way into Christian lxx manuscripts in both the main text and margins, and into scholarly exegesis of the Old Testament by Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Armenian Christian writers. Though these non-lxx versions were at first regarded with suspicion by Christian intellectuals such as Justin, Irenaeus, Theodoret, and Epiphanius,4 Origen’s use of them in his own commentaries began a process of “domestication” of these readings in a Christian setting where they were redeployed to explicate apparent difficulties in the lxx text and even to support specifically Christian exegesis.5 R.G. Jenkins, “The First Column of the Hexapla: the evidence of the Milan Codex (Rahlfs 1098) and the Cairo Genizah fragment (Rahlfs 2005)” and on the basis of patristic testimony and the layout of the Greek columns by G. Norton, “Observations on the First Two Columns of the Hexapla”, both in Origen’s Hexapla and Fragments, 103–124 (Norton) and 88–102 (Jenkins). For Origen’s attitude to the status of the Hebrew biblical text, see A. Kamesar, Jerome, Greek Scholarship and The Hebrew Bible: A Study of the Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim (Oxford Classical Monographs Oxford: Oxford University, 1993), 4–28, and E.L. Gallagher, Hebrew Scripture in Patristic Biblical Theory: Canon, Language, Text (vcs 114; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2012), 69–85. 4 A. Salvesen, “Aquila, Symmachus and the Translation of Proof-texts,” in Die Septuaginta – Text, Wirkung, Rezeption. 4. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (lxx.d), Wuppertal 19.–22. Juli 2012 (eds. W. Kraus and S. Kreuzer; wunt 325; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 154–168. Also on this and several other issues covered by the present chapter, see the stimulating article of Olivier Munnich, “Les révisions juives de la Septante. Modalités et fonctions de leur transmission. Enjeux éditoriaux contemporains,” in La Bible juive dans l’Antiquité (eds. R. Gounelle and J. Joosten; htb 9; Prahins: Éditions du Zèbre, 2014), 141–190 (141–142). Although I do not agree with every element of his analysis, I have learned much from his fine scholarship in this meeting point of Septuagint, Jewish studies, and patristics. 5 S. Morlet, “L’utilisation des révisions juives de la Septante dans la première littérature chré- tienne. Philologie, exégèse et polémique,” in La Bible juive dans l’Antiquité (eds. R. Gounelle and J. Joosten; htb 9; Prahins: Éditions du Zèbre, 2014), 117–140 (119–120); Morlet believes that Origen’s Letter to Africanus influenced Christian scholarly interest in the later versions. See.